Catholicism, Philosophy, and the Religious Marketplace?

[TheAtheist]

Greetings all. Here again to ask one my long drawn out questions - and since the moderator moratorium is up, i’m feeling quite confident that this thread won’t get hijacked by the same old stuff.

So, - Christianity, Philosophy, and the Religious Marketplace

What the heck do i mean? I’m referring to the current situation that exists in the modern world with Catholicism as one amongst many other religions.

Before someone attempts to slide this into that other forum which will remain nameless (since at the end of the day, it really comprises of people yelling and screaming at each other about how they are right) allow me to refine this question:

How does Catholicism philosophically address the claims of other religions?

Obviously you would believe they are incorrect - otherwise you wouldn’t be a Catholic. But, what i’m asking more about is - why?

Is this merely an exercise of faith in doctrines and texts, or is there something more to it?

Allow me to point something out: The type of question i’m asking is not whether or not a God or Gods exists. Its actually quite different - for those question anyone who wishes to participate should at least theoretically believe in a god of some sort - whether its the impartial deist deity who sits around thinking all day or the more proactive God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob will be up to the participant.

And to further clarify: I’m not asking for an enumeration of the good qualities of Christianity vis-a-vis other religions. For that i can go to the other forum that will remain nameless.

I’m asking rather for the Criterion of Truth. Is it a possibility to impartial weigh the truths asserted by your Bible, your Church, etc. vs. that of another religion?

Could one argue that Reason alone can guide you to the doorstep of your particular life path? Or is that simply an impossibility?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m asking rather for the Criterion of Truth. Is it a possibility to impartial weigh the truths asserted by your Bible, your Church, etc. vs. that of another religion?

Could one argue that Reason alone can guide you to the doorstep of your particular life path? Or is that simply an impossibility?

sure, reason leads to Christianity for a number of reasons, but if you don’t want a listing of them im not sure how to answer your question, other than to say yes it is possible use reason as a guide among the various faiths.

it is a common fallacy among some groups that it is impossible and therefore all claims of faith must be equal. that is not true, as in anything else, the proper application of reason will lead one to the truth, even when the truth is unpalatable. to not search for the truth is simply to say that one does not care about the truth.

 

[davidv]

{snip}Obviously you would believe they are incorrect - otherwise you wouldn’t be a Catholic. But, what i’m asking more about is - why?

Is this merely an exercise of faith in doctrines and texts, or is there something more to it?
{snip}

For me it is not an exercise of faith in doctrines and texts, it is so much more. Given my 57 years, with high school in the 60’s and college in the 70’s I have been exposed to many challenges to the faith that is mine from infancy. None these challenges caused me to leave the Church.

The “more”:

One is the cohesiveness of her teachings. Another is the stability of her teachings in the face of immense pressure from society.

And yet another is the “heroic virtue” that it has generated in her Saints.

To remain brief I’ll restrict my comments to only this question.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Greetings all. Here again to ask one my long drawn out questions - and since the moderator moratorium is up, i’m feeling quite confident that this thread won’t get hijacked by the same old stuff.

So, - Christianity, Philosophy, and the Religious Marketplace

What the heck do i mean? I’m referring to the current situation that exists in the modern world with Catholicism as one amongst many other religions.

Before someone attempts to slide this into that other forum which will remain nameless (since at the end of the day, it really comprises of people yelling and screaming at each other about how they are right) allow me to refine this question:

How does Catholicism philosophically address the claims of other religions?

Obviously you would believe they are incorrect - otherwise you wouldn’t be a Catholic. But, what i’m asking more about is - why?

Is this merely an exercise of faith in doctrines and texts, or is there something more to it?

There is a great deal more to it than that.​

Allow me to point something out: The type of question i’m asking is not whether or not a God or Gods exists.

That goes without saying​

Its actually quite different - for those question anyone who wishes to participate should at least theoretically believe in a god of some sort - whether its the impartial deist deity who sits around thinking all day or the more proactive God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob will be up to the participant.

And to further clarify: I’m not asking for an enumeration of the good qualities of Christianity vis-a-vis other religions. For that i can go to the other forum that will remain nameless.

I’m asking rather for the Criterion of Truth. Is it a possibility to impartial weigh the truths asserted by your Bible, your Church, etc. vs. that of another religion?

I don’t believe there is a single criterion - life’s not that simple, so why should this be ?​

Could one argue that Reason alone can guide you to the doorstep of your particular life path? Or is that simply an impossibility?

It’s impossible - though that has often been argued.​

 

[Fran65]

Impartial? Very difficult to achieve that!

One of the most important criteria of truth for me, is that Christianity is the only Religion that offers a way back to God. It is my understanding that every other religion teaches that once sins have been committed then the punishment must and will take place.

**Judaism **- still waiting for the Messiah.
**Islam **- judgement will occur and there are no advocates. Judgement rests only on your behaviour while alive and this is recorded.
Hinduism - reincarnation according to one’s behaviour during this lifetime.
Buddhism - reincarnation according to one’s behaviour during this lifetime; possibility of enlightenment depends on your behaviour over lifetimes.
**Sikhism **- no afterlife, liberation possible during life depending upon own actions/beliefs.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

There is no God other than the Christian God who practices what he preaches. “No greater love has any man than that he lay down his life for a friend.”

One does not see this kind of divinity on the cross in any other religion; ergo: if God is love, only the Christian God has proven it so.

 

[yppop]

Could one argue that Reason alone can guide you to the doorstep of your particular life path? Or is that simply an impossibility?

I don’t believe Jesus is God; I know that He is. Here is my REASON:

I find that all that Jesus said is true. (I find nothing untrue)
It is true that Jesus said He is God. (at least five times in scripture)
Therefore, Jesus is God!

You may believe that this argument is not true, but it is valid, that is to say, it is derived from REASON. Truth inheres in the premises.

Yppop

 

[taylor007]

How does Catholicism philosophically address the claims of other religions?

Obviously you would believe they are incorrect - otherwise you wouldn’t be a Catholic. But, what i’m asking more about is - why?

i am not a theologian ,but this is what i think.i dont think catholics regard other religions as ****.theologically ,we are definitely at different spheres abt the nature of God and his ways but philosophically i believe there are principles that are common to catholics and followers of other religions that will ultimately provide paths to lead a moral and principled life. i am a catholic bcoz its teachings answer my questions most satisfactorily…if u ask why,we will have to discuss and reason it issue by issue.

Could one argue that Reason alone can guide you to the doorstep of your particular life path? Or is that simply an impossibility?

it depends on the path one takes.if one is aiming for a happy worldly life and doesnt care abt what happens after this life time,he would believe that mere reasoning alone can guide him.but for a theist,he has an eternal afterlife to worry abt ,so he would be choosing a lifepath that would grant him a better eternity.also,he is well aware of the limitations of his brain ,so he will know that reasoning alone cant guide him.for that one needs to be humble and come down to his knees.also he will trust god to make decisions for him

 

[TheAtheist]

Hmm, maybe i didn’t present myself too clearly on this one. I should spend a little more time here - given that the other threads in this forum are degenerating to the usually talk.

Let me try to draw an analogy:

So saw you have a person who is fairly sure that there is something beyond this current iteration of life. That, there exists something beyond the material world - its just that he doesn’t know what it is. Let’s call this theoretical person the “General Anti-Materialist.” So that would exclude myself, vast majority of atheists, and some agnostics.

So, The “Generic Anti-Materialist” sits at the crossroads of the 5 major religions that dot this earth.

Now he/she is window shopping. And like any good potential buyer, he/she is asking good questions. This isn’t some slouch whose going to latch onto the first thing he/she sees.

Now obviously, the person wants to get it right. But they have the problem of competing sellers and slogans.

The Christian Evangelical will tell him Christ is the only God and his revealed word is the The Bible.

However, our person stopped by the Orthodox Jewish stall and Sunni Islamic stall and they pretty much said the same thing.

“They all can’t be right” the person reasons.

Turning down “Eastern Religious alley” - he/she encounters an additional dilemma. At the very least, the folks over at “Semitic Religion lane” talked of similar concepts and thought about issues of the divine in a similar manner. The details are different obviously, but each of the stalls bought the “Platonic/Aristotlean logic engine” or some degree of it.

IE: Statements of God as an entity are similar. God is Unchanging. Omnipotent. God can’t lie. etc.

The folks over at “Eastern Religious alley” don’t necessarily play like that. Heck, some of their religions completely lack the role of a Creator deity. There is no “travelling back to God” because such an entity does not exist.

“God” for say some Daoists is a non-anthropomorphic principle - perhaps a kin to the law of gravity. For the older iterations of Buddhism - the gods in general are irrelevant. The Goal is to free oneself from the cycle of reincarnation of which the Gods are trapped in.

And for those religions that do look similar to the folks over at “Semitic lane” - well, logic engine is still faulty.

God is Perfect Change (as Unchanging being would be deemed impossible). Or that the Saving Deity in question isn’t all powerful. etc.

---

So Bob/Mary/Whatever has been walking around all day and decides to sitdown by a fountain. He/She’s got enough religious literature to stuff to his/her duffle bag with and has decided to take a brake to eat his/her waffle/ice cream cone/chilli dog/lo mein.

And now a couple questions need to be asked:

For those religions who emphasize a sacred text, how can they validate their own views vis-a-vis the other “stall” if the other folks are using the same exact logic?

IE: I believe in X and therefore i believe this Sacred Text.

If that’s really what it comes down to - is it an impossibility to arbitrate between the viewpoints?

Will this really come down to a matter of personal taste and what Bob/Mary feels comfortable with?

And what happens when Bob/Mary starts comparing the “sacred text” religions against the “practice orientated” ones.

Then it becomes a matter not only of which religion is correct, but also which philosophical orientation is correct as well.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

You don’t need to repeat your question so much as to reply to answers you have been given, such as the one above, which is repeated here.

*There is no God other than the Christian God who practices what he preaches. “No greater love has any man than that he lay down his life for a friend.”

One does not see this kind of divinity on the cross in any other religion; ergo: if God is love, only the Christian God has proven it so.*

If you were shopping around for the most compassionate God, (lack of compassion is often the thing most often thrown by atheists at the various deities of the world’s religions) I don’t see why you would need to go any further than Christ.)

Can you name me a religion that offers a more endearing version of God?

 

[yppop]

IE: I believe in X and therefore i believe this Sacred Text.

If that’s really what it comes down to - is it an impossibility to arbitrate between the viewpoints?

Will this really come down to a matter of personal taste and what Bob/Mary feels comfortable with?

And what happens when Bob/Mary starts comparing the “sacred text” religions against the “practice orientated” ones.

Then it becomes a matter not only of which religion is correct, but also which philosophical orientation is correct as well.

Most believers believe in a transcendent God, and He, for the most part, is similar among the various religions. Most religions originate from the ritualization of that common belief. So your question I believe is: which one is the right one. There is a simple answer: Christianity, because it is the only Religion started directly by God (see post 7 above). But, which Christian Religion? That would be Roman Catholicism because Jesus gave Peter the keys to His kingdom and commanded that what Peter bound (and loosed) on Earth would be bound (and loosed) in heaven. And it seems to me that Catholicism has transpired as a pristine thread from Peter to Benedict in spite of the human foibles along the way.

Now I have a question for you atheists, a question I posed on another thread and got no answer. Here is what I wrote:

Think about the despair on the face of the tiny starving child in Somalia or the sadness of a mother whose child has died. Where is God? Can He really stand by and witness such evil? On the other hand, isn’t it unthinkable that this life is all that awaits those who suffer? Doesn’t their suffering demand something better? Could that something be anything short of eternal bliss? I don’t think so! And every time I hear an atheist smirk at anyone who believes, or listen to an agnostic preach their indifference, or hear a cynic cry fool, I think of the suffering, I think of the starving, the desperate, the handicapped, the maimed, the lonely and I want to cry out, “God must exist”! If for nothing else, to support the unfortunate souls in this life, there will be something better in the next. Can we be so heartless to condemn them to a single, pitiful lifetime by telling them there is no God, that there is nothing else? Isn’t that the height of callousness? Yes, if for no other reason, we must believe! To give hope.

 

[TheAtheist]

First Ypop:

On the other hand, isn’t it unthinkable that this life is all that awaits those who suffer?

Why must the universe conform to our desires?

I have the same argument with the ‘radical’ atheists who also go on and on and on about building a better world sans religious people.

I don’t understand how its valid to link what we wish to be true, or what we desire to be true, or what we think should be true with what we experience?

I mean, essentially, your saying that because an event that you or I might have a negative reaction occurs, it can’t possiblely be the way it ends. There has to be some sort of silver lining to the end of it.

Well - how do even go about proving that?

And now to Yppop and Charlemagne at the same time:

There is a simple answer: Christianity, because it is the only Religion started directly by God

There is no God other than the Christian God who practices what he preaches. “No greater love has any man than that he lay down his life for a friend.”

One does not see this kind of divinity on the cross in any other religion; ergo: if God is love, only the Christian God has proven it so.

Yeah and i can find similar statements made by Reformed Jews, Islamic Shi’ites, and heck, even Pure Land Buddhists who think salvation is to be found via the Lotus Sutra.

They deploy the same type of argument.

And of course you’ll say their wrong. And they’ll say your wrong.

And you’ll cite your ancient texts or traditions, and they’ll do the same exact thing.

See a trend?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

TheAtheist

*Yeah and i can find similar statements made by Reformed Jews, Islamic Shi’ites, and heck, even Pure Land Buddhists who think salvation is to be found via the Lotus Sutra.

They deploy the same type of argument. *

You may think you can find similar statements, but I notice you don’t offer even one example. I don’t think you’ll find any religion other than Christianity that shows a God compassionate enough to die on a cross for his children.

For me, that’s a God to die for!

 

[Jon_S]

For me, that’s a God to die for!

The apostles all thought that as well, since all but one of them was brutally killed. If the miracles of Christ were a hoax, it’s amazing that not one of the apostles caved and revealed the secret.

 

[rossum]

Is it a possibility to impartial weigh the truths asserted by your Bible, your Church, etc. vs. that of another religion?

This is not the first time this question has been asked. In North India about 500 BCE lived a tribe called the Kalamas. They were confused because each different preacher who came to visit them said “I am right, the other preachers are wrong”. Then yet another preacher arrived, so they asked him your question, “How do we tell which preacher is right?”
The Kalamas said to the preacher: “There are some monks and brahmans, venerable sir, who visit us. They expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other monks and brahmans too, venerable sir, come to us. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks and brahmans spoke the truth and which falsehood?”

The preacher replied: "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them.

“Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

Source: Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 3.65
That might also be summarised as “By their fruits shall you know them.”

rossum

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The apostles all thought that as well, since all but one of them was brutally killed. If the miracles of Christ were a hoax, it’s amazing that not one of the apostles caved and revealed the secret.

Fanaticism will lead to dying for any cause, good or bad. Jim Jones comes to mind. And fanaticism can also lead those who are prepared to die, to make others die.​

That X dies for his beliefs, proves absolutely nothing about them. All that’s needed, is a cause considered sufficient to die for;
people can probably be persuaded to die as witnesses to the superiority of Gucci over Chanel

 

[warpspeedpetey]

im still enamored of the mathematical precision of the convergent prophecies of Christianity. for me the truth of Christianity is obvious in its structures as in its maxims.

the conglomerative nature of the faith taken in view of that prophetic precision make Christianity unassailable from the view of whether or not its the truth. Christianity is unique in that manner.

some will accept, some will not

G-d doesn’t ask for your intellect, or your understanding, He asks for your love and obediance.

the question becomes

‘will you serve?’

 

[yppop]

TheAtheist
Greetings

I think I answered your question in Post #1 concerning the ability to argue with Reason why I believe what I do; didn’t I? (read my post #7)

I think I also answered your question about making a rational choice of religions in my post#11. Was I wrong? Should I have flipped a coin? I don’t think so because: “**I find **that all Jesus said was true” is irrefutable”. I chose my words carefully and most emphatically made a subjective statement. What I mean is that every time I do what Jesus proclaims (you know, sacrifice my needs for another, for example) I am rewarded with a feeling of joy or peace. For me His prescription for living makes sense, so when He says He is God, I believe. Now what other religion makes that claim? Not similar statements, but what religion was founded by God Himself? And incidentally, I would never say that another believer is wrong; we all believe in a transcendent God; and as I pointed out religion is the ritualization of belief. There are only greater and lesser religions.

Since, I answered your questions directly and rationally, could you please answer my question about the callousness of those who deny the unfortunate the hope of believing in an after-life. I’d really like to know how if you could tell a little 9 year old girl born with spinal bifida that there is no God and this is all that there is. In your answer in post #12 you emphasize “we”, “you and I”, our negative reaction and a need for a silver lining. That misses the point completely; it is how a person suffering misfortune feels, not you or I. It doesn’t matter to them whether or not God’s existence can be proved, only the hope that there is a God.

If you want an idea of how God might provide eternal life for one and all (even an atheist) jump over to the “Suffering” thread and read post #14.

Thank you for your time.
YPPOP

 

[taylor007]

For those religions who emphasize a sacred text, how can they validate their own views vis-a-vis the other “stall” if the other folks are using the same exact logic?
IE: I believe in X and therefore i believe this Sacred Text.

greetings ,mr Atheist.
its not that i believe in X and so i believe its sacred text.i believe in X ** BCOZ** i find its sacred text true according to my reasoning and logic.u seem to mean i am manipulating my reasoning in a way that confirms my belief in X.its not that.
the very basis of catholic belief are the holy bible and the holy tradition.
as u have agreed,

Statements of God as an entity are similar. God is Unchanging. Omnipotent. God can’t lie. etc. ’

though all religions agree on these facts,only christianity offers a picture of God that blends most suitably with these statements.jesus suffered so as to save us who hunted him down.and on the process he saved not only those who believed in him but also his most fierce critics.laying down your life for your friends is itself great, then imagine giving your life away for the ones who hate you? now thats a kind of love i have found in no other sacred text.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

im still enamored of the mathematical precision of the convergent prophecies of Christianity. for me the truth of Christianity is obvious in its structures as in its maxims.

the conglomerative nature of the faith taken in view of that prophetic precision make Christianity unassailable from the view of whether or not its the truth. Christianity is unique in that manner.

some will accept, some will not

G-d doesn’t ask for your intellect, or your understanding, He asks for your love and obediance.

the question becomes

‘will you serve?’

But - those prophecies are “manufactured” - they don’t originally refer to Jesus; they are referred to him after he is experienced. Which is not as bizaare as it sounds BTW​